Disputed borders are both a cause and a symptom of tensions between big neighbours in South Asia. When the colonial power, Britain, withdrew from India it left a dangerous legacy of carelessly or arbitrarily drawn borders. Tensions between India and China flare on occasion, especially along India's far north-eastern border, along the state of Arunachal Pradesh. In recent years Chinese officials have taken to calling part of the same area “South Tibet”, to Indian fury, as that seems to imply a Chinese claim to the territory. A failure to agree the precise border, and then to demarcate it, ensures that future disagreements may flare again. Pakistan, too, is beset by difficult borders. Afghanistan, to the north, has long been a hostile neighbour. This is largely because Afghanistan refuses to recognise the frontier—known as the Durand line—between the countries, drawn by the British.

Most contentious of all, however, are the borders in Kashmir, where Pakistan, India and China all have competing claims. By the time of independence, in 1947, it was clear that many Indian Muslims were determined to break off from Hindu-majority India. It fell to a British civil servant, who knew nothing of the region, to draw a line of partition between territory that would become Pakistan and India. Pakistan was given Muslim dominated areas in the far north west, plus territory in the east (which itself got independence as Bangladesh in 1971). The rulers of some disputed areas, notably Kashmir, were told to choose which country to join.

While Kashmir's Hindu rulers prevaricated, hoping somehow to become an independent country, Pakistan's leaders decided to force the issue. Since Kashmir was (and is) a Muslim majority territory, Pakistan felt justified in seeing Pushtun warlords charge in from the north-west of Pakistan, late in 1947, to seize control of Kashmir. In response India, apparently invited by Kashmir's rulers, deployed its national army and stopped the invaders taking Srinagar, Kashmir's capital, located in the Kashmir valley, the most coveted part of the territory. The resulting line of control, by and large, remains the de-facto international frontier within Kashmir and, in effect, is accepted by Paksitan and India. Huge numbers of Indian and Pakistani soldiers remain in Kashmir today as both countries profess to be the rightful authority for the rest of Kashmir. Complicating matters, China has also extended its influence, and control, over portions of Kashmir, largely with the support of Pakistan, an ally.

The interactive map above allows you to view the various territorial claims from each country's perspective.

Mind you, the Pashtuns invaded Kashmir out of their own volition when India's postal service began to list Kashmir as Indian territory, and the Muslims of Punch and Rajouri began to take up arms against the Maharaja. Till that point, the Maharaja retained control, despite increasing Indian pressure for him to accede to India. The postal service move highlighted fears amongst the Pashtuns that India would simply invade Kashmir, and so the Pashtuns invaded in support of the Punch uprising. Surely, the Pakistanis were involved, but it was a spontaneous move by the Pashtuns in support of the Punch and Rajouri uprising.

India needs to stop recognizing Pakistan as a country and declare it as a break away province and anex it to India as a Union Territory like Andaman / Goa / Pondichery. Then Kashmir problem will cease to exist. China will be baffled since its new neighbor will be more powerful than before and might even pull off of Tibet. Such a new country will be something that even the G5 would fear. Indians and Pakistanis - learn to look past the religion. Just some 50 years back, both civilizations were two faces of the same coin. See who is gaining on us when we stay divided. And we can give the option to Bangladesh to consider 'joining in'. And same to Sri Lanka. Such a join of force - even EU wont be a match for it.

or.. continue fighting for the next 100 years until all of you are hunted down by drones from the west.

It is not possible ever to forget what happened in the late 80's going through 90's down to mid 2000. Pak used to support infiltrators into Kashmir. It is clear like broad daylight that it was Pak's intention to capture independent Kashmir from the former king with the help of infiltrators led the Muslim majority state to stick to India. It was the father of one of the former CM's of J&K who at that time protected the people from invading infiltrators.

Nehru finally decided to launch a strike only at the invitation of Raja Hari singh. The Indian army at that time was welcomed with much cheers by the people there. It is by international law later Raja decide to merge the state with India.
Again why did Pakistan sent troops to Kashmir even after successful elections there in democratic lines???

Why did Pak gave passes to foreigners and send their troops along to Siachen, (worlds highest battle field today)?
Why Pak sent its troops to Kashmir in 1999?

Had India went on to capture until its original boundary in that skirmish the issue won't have raised again and again. India at that time could have made it. But for the peace, even after such a great suffering India stepped back. The very same thing avoided another war between India and Pakistan when Indian Parliament was attacked. It should be remembered that India never went to attack any foreign countries. It only defended attacks against its territories only.

Two major flaws- (1) Only the Muslims of the Kashmir vally want to secede from India, Jammu Hindus and Leh Buddhists have nothing to do with secession
(2) The terms of the plebiscite was that Pakistan withdraw its troops from PoK first that never happened. Now, plebiscite is impossible since demographics have changes and all Hindus have been terrorized and driven out of the Kashmir valley.

That's absolutely fantastic coming out of your so-partisan view.
When it comes to your illegitimate control of foreign territories, Your verbal usage gets much more imperative but, when it comes to us, it is verbs like "administered or controlled"
Guam, Hawaii have had never been part of USA. They just act satellite territories to let US establish control in Western and Central Pacific. Red Indians have been obliterated to zilch sounds a hyperbole, but let me not talk about Human Right violations that took place in Continental U.S
Again, Diego Garcia is still in the eye of America.
If you're an aware citizen, you'd be knowing the movements happening there. Mind you, I never mentioned about American "claims" on Diego Garcia.
Falkland was similarly snubbed by UK and the list goes on and on.
Truly, God has shown mercy on the Queen.

Seems like the WEST is interested in sparking an another legacy of divisive wars in this side of the world.
How about we talking United Kingdom's illegal occupation of Commonwealth territories even in 21st century?
How about USA still controlling Guam, Hawai, Texas, Southern States, Alaska and has its eye on Diego Garcias now?
Can you please explain this first and then talk about Fantasy Frontiers? Give us a break.

yeah! and india should also claim UK and the better part of EU. and maybe plan to take over USA in the next stage. the final goal should be to ultimately have 5 provinces under India viz. Asia, Oceania, Africa, Europe, Americas.. and optionally Antarctica (would be a great summer resort)

there are also border disputes between india and nepal, which the economist chose to conveniently ignore. india occupies nepali territory in kalapani, an area that nepal borders india in far west nepal and other places along nepal's southern border with india, including Susta, among others. incidentally, nepal and china settled all border related issues in the 1960s.

Pakistan wants POK not because it wants to support muslim population, it wants to open a portal into China for trade and other ties like the Silk Road. If not for PoK.. its surrounded by India / Iran / Russian and Afghans who all hate Pakis. Thats why PoK is/ has been / will be a core issue. Pakistan needs pok for its basic survival.